YEC kids

Excuse me for not hunting down a Spanish-English dictionary, but "En la tierra del ciegos, el tuerto es el Rey."My Spanish is weak, but I only don't know ciegos and tuerto, so I'm curious. I'm also curious why it's not de los ciegos. I'm tired of wondering and not asking, so now I'm asking.

I have some thoughts. I don't think it's just creationists that are like that at fourteen, but I do think young creationists show up flaunting their ignorance for a reason.Regular science is overwhelming and rarely the main interest of a 14-year-old. A normal fourteen year old is unlikely to boldly walk into a medical lab and start an argument about pathology.Creation science is not overwhelming and is occasionally the main interest of a 14-year-old, as it is a religious/philisophical issue. Since a fundamentalist 14-year-old is likely to be told that he can confound scientists with a few simple facts, it's not surprising that he suddenly sees himself as David, his simple facts as the stones, and the scientists as the Philistine giants about to be slain for the glory of God.On the flip side, I mourn the loss of respect for age, creationist or otherwise. I even wish that the evolutionists spoke more respectfully even to someone like Buzsaw just because of his age. That's one of those "moral decline" things I wish wasn't declining.

I doubt seriously Paul missed the irony. I suspect he simply decided to ignore it in that one instance to make his own point. People do such things all the time. I don't believe this is true, either, but then, neither of us have anything to go on to back that up. The wisdom of the world that Paul speaks of is not technological knowledge. As I look around at the wisdom of the portion of the world I am in, I am not impressed. I don't think many people knew better than Paul how to live life on earth in a manner that brings joy, and it seems obvious to me that they don't know now. Being anti-nature is a very modern attitude. Even the later churches were very pro learning from nature, not anti- like today. Only since the Catholic church got to hold governmental power did the church ever oppose learning from nature. Attributing such an attitude to Paul in very anachronistic, especially from a guy who said, "The heavens declare God's glory, and the firmament shows his handiwork." His science may not have been very good, but he certainly wasn't against learning from nature.

I don't think it follows that he was losing arguments to the Greeks from this. Maybe yes, maybe no, but nothing to safely assume that. I don't think Paul seems like the young-earthers at all.